tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg March 23, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. steve cole is here, the dean of columbia journalism school, also a staff writer for the new yorker magazine. his latest shoe is called, rex tillerson still acting like a ceo. it looks at tillerson's relationship with the press, the secretary's trip to asia last week he came controversial when he announced that he would not be traveling with the diplomatic press corps. he is also come under fire for his media silence, neglecting what many view as an integral part of his secretary of state.
his 2012 book, private empire, exxon mobil and amend -- in america, power is a study is -- of the elio chime in. i'm please to have steve cole at this table, welcome. steve: thank you. i can imagine they said this, it is an exciting time, i cannot remember a more exciting 10. to be looking at what is happening in the world, to be a journalist. it is exciting to be at a journalism school, all these young reporters going out into this environment, trying to figure out how to do their job professionally. it is a time i think, when the tax on the premise of -- has strengthened the press, made clear were what our role is, and also raised the bar on our performance, we have to earn it. in this environment of trying to g legitimize, or by the press. it is an exciting time to be in his profession. charlie: should we as
journalists have learned something from the campaign? steve: yes. there were lots of mrs. in the of mrs. in the run-up to the election by journalism. we have lots of journalists in this country. our media is fragmented. or was the overreliance on .rediction, monday to science we have lost a lot of professional reporting. it is to be 20 years ago that there were very healthy newspaper newsrooms. through wireding services and syndication services into the networks, the two coasts. i do not think we would have been quite so surprised in new york, california. charlie: if we had access to what they were saying? steve: a lot of reporting in ohio, michigan, wisconsin, that was done by major news
organizations his parachute reporting, it was not coming out of the states, newsrooms, with the same kind of pulsing power that it used to have. also think, at journalism school, we wrestled with the role of big he took in this world. the way journalism now requires competition on skills and data science skills, that is all true, but there is an overreliance on data science prediction in the selection. and reliance on knocking on doors and going into key districts. i remember the washington post when, 15, 20 years ago, there is a ritual in the general -- general election, guys which is 12 swing districts and they would go out and stand in front lawns and knocking people's doors and say, what is on your mind, what issues are driving you? it would not predict the result, but when you read their 3000 ,ord report of all these voices and they would take advantage of
their experience, going back to a sense ofs, you had where was going. at least it was an authentic role of journalism. it was not trying to give you a mathematical number of the likelihood of an outcome. it was going into these communities and letting voters be heard. i think we must doing some of that this time around. charlie: the person i can remember, which even though they may have felt it, candidates said that the press was the enemy. charlie: 20 and it is now the president of the united states. [laughter] that's my point. he was always had among politicians, the feeling that they did not get a fair shake. steve: yes. charlie: here you had someone who took on the press in the campaign as the enemy. steve: that was part of a strategy of populism. think overall, my sense is that
the press is used to being attacked. if you're a reporter and you have not been yelled at by her subjects a few times, you are not doing your job. [laughter] i do not think the press has been shaken by those kinds of assaults. i worry about the delegitimization of our constitutional design by all this incendiary speech that seeks to cheat -- delegitimize the functions of judges and professional reporters and people at the national park service, who are serving the taxpayers. i worry about a strategy of trying to change the contours of how our system is supposed to work. it and get onlder with our job. charlie: that's what i say.
we should just do our job. not worry about anything else, do our job. and you look now at the idea of fake news and not an acceptance of what facts are, that seems to pretend something different. hase: this term fake news now been hijacked to me and, news i do not like. it started out to describe something more specific and more worrisome, which was the manufacturing of deliberately false information, sometimes for commercial purposes in offshore businesses. then distributing that across social media platforms and making money off of the advertising available. it clicked. some of this manufactured news, which was not done for ideological reasons, in some cases it was done to make money, it did focus on trump because people jumped on the stories. another category of news, which is this
information, or heavily ideological news, very difficult to determine. it is a have i of the beholder question as to when something is so distorted, deliberately constructed to mislead, that it crosses from just being a hard opinion into being an active disinformation campaign. there is quite a lot of flow of partially media invented stories that mislead for ideological or political purposes. the social media platforms of the story here. not because they are solely responsible for this problem, but they represent a profound juste in the way news is repeated in our democracy. newspapers used to control their distribution system to read the paper boy tossed the paper. networks had a clear pathway from -- from their news routes to their audiences.
now the people who create news have lost control of its distribution, because the most important way it is distributed through facebook and other social media platforms. those companies see themselves as neutral, not as editorials or gatekeepers. their idea is... charlie: a dissolution path. steve: the platform for free exchange. it is difficult for them to accept responsibility for policing a public square of sorts. that is quite profitable for them. i do not think we have gotten the far in resulting challenge that this election has presented to us. feel pretty sure that it is going to get worse next time around. charlie: in the next election? steve: yes. people have learned to do this. the power of social media platforms as a distribution arm for one news will not go away between now and 2020. i think that companies, facebook is trying to figure out what it
can, should do. it is at least stepping forward to engage these questions. i am not sure they're going to be in a position to prevent this kind of campaigning in the future, or that it is in their business interest to do so. something inust the rearview mirror, this is something that will shape our democracy. charlie: how can you define the use of twitter by this president has done -- what that is done? steve: the media of course and the role of media politics has changed, the technology has changed. remember when president came to town, he was a master of television, he and mike beaver model this presidency of going over the heads of the working press by stage managing the president's speech and appearances and his power and so forth. everyone remarked on how successfully he had done on
enron around the press using television. president trump has done the same thing using twitter, he has managed to break out of constraints that presents either choose to impose on their communication, because they want more elegance. charlie: he is on it to his own detriment, many would argue, including people within his own close advisers, who, because it takes them off message and creates a whole distraction. that does not allow for what may have been after that speech, a positive. steve: think every political consultant in the country would agree with that. disconcerting that the power of that platform, the way he uses it to reach into your pocket, you wake up in the morning, flickr phone on, there is the president of the united states saying, look what he is done again! strategy ofopulist
being able to speak directly to without gatekeepers, advisers, consultants, that has been his conceit throughout. he is a professional entertainer. he knows how to control a stage and a live set, he knows how to use competition to create drama. that may be no way to run a country, but it is his instinct about how to communicate. i am not sure he will be able to relinquish and judging by the pattern so far. there seems to be certain hours of the day where he must react. [laughter] charlie: are there discussions among people in journalism schools and editors of papers about, where are we and what do we do, other than the basic thing, we do our job? convening at the school a few weeks ago with editors from the mainstream press. we had a break for editor about covering the trump presidency. end, everyone
circles around to what you said, which is that we do not need to lose confidence in our role under the first amendment. we know through experience and our professional lives what to do. we know what the questions are. this is a remarkable constitutional scenario, just from the admissions made in the congress yesterday, where the fbi director says that members of the presidents campaign team are under active investigation because of concerns about their contacts with russia. according to know 17, 18 intelligence agencies, that russian intelligence services carried out in effort to disrupt the 2016 11 -- election. charlie: the argument is made about, today have evidence that it was intended to benefit one candidate more than the other? steve: setback in american history, tommy where in the first 100 days of a new presidency you've had a
situation where the fbi's investigating people close to the president for colluding with a foreign government that is taken hostile action against the united states to affect the outcome of its election. it is been a while since we've had the constitutional scenario like this, nevermind the troubled them, but the court is trying to intervene in a presidents immigration policy, the president calling them so-called judges, we cannot normalize the situation. this is a really serious of departures in our postwar experience. charlie: then there is rex tillerson, secretary of state. you wrote the book about exxon going to thenot nato conference, i assume because he is going to be in or the president of china is visiting the president of the united states. petty announced that -- how do you balance that?
just returned from a trip to the far east. i think you could argue that they may be better off down there, the crucial relationship, then at nato. steve: something the rest of the scheduling. i'm not worried about that. take note however, that the secretary of state, he does not have any under -- other secretaries nominated, no assistant secretaries nominated. he has endorsed a percent reduction in the budget of the state department. a basically does not have team. he does not have a relationship with the white house. it is normal for secretaries of state to come in without a type relationship with the presidents aides and his campaign team. her one secretary clinton came in having run a very bitter campaign against president obama. it took her team a while and obama's team a while to communicate, being nice with one another. she succeeded because she understood how to use the pulpit of the state department to make
herself felt. secretary of state is the second most important spokesperson of the government after the president. it is your opportunity, job, to get out there and talk about america's crisis, foreign policy. one of the tricks that the last five secretaries of the state thatmodeled is how you use speech, bully pulpits, to gain influence inside the cabinet, white house. by here yourself a force opportunity to speak almost distinctively on behalf of the united states. think in -- the last five secretaries with had, john kerry, a professional politician, almost president of the united states, hillary clinton, candidate for presidents, battle scarred senator, condoleezza rice, figure who hadic vast experience at the white powell, madeleine
albright, first woman to hold the seat and who rose to the opportunity to speak about big .deas all around the world it doesn't really matter about which party or what the ideological profile the administration is, that is a model for you do the job effectively. of secretary tillerson is that when he does talk, you can see he is still learning what the difference is between running a giant corporation and speaking on behalf of the united states and what foreign policy is. he is comfortable in conversation. of dealing with i chased him-- around like johnny reporter because he would not sit down across table. i would go to was public speeches in sand in the audience and raised my hand. a watched him. is he wouldformat read a prepared speech, but he
would take questions from the audience. they were not generally professional journalists who were as knowledgeable as he was about northeast asia. they were smart people, sometimes questions will be challenging, but he can handle it. he was the chief executive of the company for 10 years. charlie: any company. steve: a giant company, he certainly knows the leadership of a lot of patience. charlie: should the by definition give him the tools to be a good secretary of state? steve: i think the job has several components. one of them involves negotiating , private, super qualified that's usually includes leaders or foreign people. charlie: most negotiation is in private. steve: in american diplomacy? charlie: yes, i do not think john kerry was telling us what was going on. steve: yes, but he was out
talking to foreign press, legislators, all the time that he was talking privately with russians in syria. you have to play at all those levels. we are an open society, a democracy. you need to be accountable to your own public. all of our allies are also democracies. their decision-making about whether or not they will go into, for example, more confrontational risky posture about north korea, that decision will be a function of domestic politics in japan, south korea, australia, the european union. if you think you are going to change a construct of regional policy in asia without speaking aloud to all those parliaments and public's that are your allies, think you are not going to get there. there are a few kinds of negotiations like preparing for a secret opening with cuba or nixon to china or closed doors,
let's try to get the middle east solved, kind of negotiation you can do entirely like a deal negotiation. does doublelomacy dimensions of the same time. it must involve public indication. charlie: and you and if all to do it. steve: it will be natural for coming -- someone coming in from it -- as an outsider even from the corporate experience to with aent himself fit -- deputy that knows the system, most dramatic service, how the embassies are at ministers, how the national security council works. he had someone, elliott abrams, who he selected for that position. he is exactly the kind of character. it was turned on by the trump white house, apparently because they thought abrams was --charlie: seems the dangers are being influenced greatly by factions within the white house. >> it's a small group of people who seem to be in every photograph. theranos of each other,
too. leaking indegree of this presidency is certainly on the top end of many washington transition that i've experienced. usually this does not happen quite so fast. it suggests that there are a lot andonflicting individuals groupings within the white house. back at theyou look president's business history and there are a lot of transactions, people in it for themselves. not a family candy company that he ran. he seems to cultivate combat amongst his advisers. is to haveplay that a conflict with the press. charlie: zero saying he was not a good choice? steve: tillerson?
he has not demonstrated whether he can rise to the occasion. he said in an interview he took one interview -- one person. charlie: friday take her? steve: sheep rest them on the press access question, she does not know northeast asia as well as the diplomatic press corps. she works for dip -- there's a website whose chief executive was a former communications specialist for the public and party. there is a general privileging of partisan media in the white house, so be it. she did professional job. when shesaid to her asked him about press access was, i have only been on the job six weeks, the patient. but this cannot go on for six months. , do not think it is effective within the state department, the cabinet, as a strategy of carrying out diplomacy.
charlie: she understood that if secretary of state he is accountable to the american public. he added he was determined to do things his way, because of exxon mobil here been successful diplomatically over 25 years for staying quiet and letting the government just governments he negotiated with manage their own to mr. politics. this is a narrow conception of diplomacy. when bargains are struck on a basis of private interests, that was said by you in your article. .teve: that is my argument you can take the other view which is that we could go back for itkind of 18th some -- century diplomacy were the secretary of state is out there negotiating, a special envoy role. america's place in the world and the diplomatic services place in the world -- he is the leader of the dramatic service. all these embassies, consulates, human rights programs, democracy promotion, public health programs, you know what it is like of there. all these authoritarian countries where, some human rights activists in chad or
angola, they get into trouble. part ofican embassy is the way that american values are transmitted in these countries. the person needs that department, at least in my memory, it is been someone in touch with that position. going back to a broader view about the press, do you think that because of criticism, that the press is more sensitive to being tougher on themselves and more rigorous, and at the same time, tougher on the president and what he says and does? so.e: i hope we have a diverse media all over the map. hard to generalize, but i do think, i fear certainly, a lot of self scrutiny after the election, being surprised by the election. i also hope the thing he said inut increasing rigor
charlie: daniel thompson is a french filmmaker whose new film is called, cezanne them off, it toces a friendship of -- people who met as juncker schoolboys who were friends for 40 years. delves into the parisian art world and offers a glimpse into the minds of its most critical thinkers. here's a look at the phone's trailer. ♪ [french]
charlie: i am pleased to have daniel thompson back at this table, welcome. daniel: thank you. charlie: they're allowing you to make a film that is not a comedy? daniel: at first. [laughter] when i was only a screenwriter, i read a lot of films that were not comedies. this time i felt, i will try to incredible into this relationship. charlie: footing trade you? daniel: at first i never heard of itdaniel:. if you step into a museum, you suzanne, and of school in france, if to reads alone, it is part of our culture. i never knew that they had known each other.
reading an article in a magazine, i found out that's not only did they know each other but they have met has children in this tiny little town in the south of france. the idea that these two little boys had become monumental figures. charlie: very different little boys in terms of their own background. exactly, but a strong and passionate friendships as children, it builds. then, is very long friendship that survived a lot of problems. that's the story of the film. they eventually broke up. the breaking up was the thing that intrigued me the most. i started research. 1886?e: that was of what, daniel: there was board -- they were born in 1839 and 1840, they were the same age. there were 20 and 1860. this is when the group of young paris,ists all went to
the thing to do was to go to paris. nothing was happening in the rest of the country. there were a fabulous group. you always see today these sort , your old all men that 45 of time anyway. starvinge young and and loving, sleeping with the models, it was a little bit like what happened 100 years later in the 1960's. what we call the 60's in the 20th century. this revolution of young people rebelling against the establishment, the bourgeoisie, throwing away all the rules. charlie: as you said they were different. one came from the upper class. daniel: i didn't know that, i
discovered it. charlie: what was your source material? daniel: a lot of letters between the two of them, wonderfully, which have been published for the first time together a few months ago. beautifully written letters, very intimate, almost love letters. charlie: like a bro-mance. daniel: exactly. there are biographies of one and the other, but nothing between them. this is my job. because so the broke up it's all a pro -- published a book called, the masterpiece. umbrage atk great that book because he thought it was about him, because it was about a failed winter. he did not find him until he left her he was dead almost. daniel: he had a bit of recognition in the last few years of his life after zola died. sola died four years before. strange circumstances, a lot of
people think he was murdered because of the dreyfus affair. that's another story for another time. [laughter] charlie: you'll make that two? daniel: i don't think so. [laughter] that suzanne and his ignored and really known only by the establishment, but by his friends, his best ofend, probably this is one the things that was the most painful for him. he admired sola's rating and loved his books and read them all. when he received this book, he said of the time his 48 years old. i've come to research about , i understand why he was so upset.
the interest children. been through as children. he was a very difficult person like his son in real life. he ends up hanging himself in front of a painting. this is the end of the book. he recognizes so many things about himself. he did not kill himself. thingsere very personal .hat he'd been through together >> zika out of every thinking they can find? daniel: when a right about this
thought, there must be something else, you did not just break up for one thing. thought, there must be something else, you didthere art happened between them, that is .ow theyloved each other, and kept wanting to survive, to make this friendship survive. their youth. charlie: this notion of how long some peopledo this, think of you as primarily doing coming. daniel: when i discover this relationship, but there was no i thought maybe there is a story in this.
i thought maybe it would do a comedy and maybe it would be trade every time i .ould finish a film it is not what you suddenly write something that is happening today. you have really to spend a lot of time speculating that you might find something out of this. out of this, all the details. you get very intimate with the ,ime, with the way people lived what they had to eat, you have to feel completely comfortable in that other century to be able to start writing as if it was a movie in the streets of new york today. three years ago i thought well, this is the moment where i could
do something else -- where they start to get old. [laughter] where i start to get old, if i want to do this it is now. i will take the time, i do not know whether i would find enough this to buildy in the screenplay. after a few months, i decided i was ready to try to give my own point of view. charlie: he had a lot of sources about the relationship, of their individual lives. i mean, books have been written about each of them. daniel: yes, a lot of things about each of them. you know more about zola anyway, of course, because first of all, you know more about a writer from his rating than from a painter, it is in the -- there is a mysterious picture behind the campus. i knew very little about the other. even though suzanne was so ignored during his life, your zynga wagner being -- jesus as an example.
the cursed artist of course. the suzanne was like that, also is now on the list of the bipolar people. unknowncourse was an phenomenon even though it existed at the time, he was always up and down. he had a rage in him, in himself. he looked for something all his life, something new that he was looking for. he had such a hard time finding it. when you see the painting of the and he years, he found was this revolutionary artist that influence -- charlie: cubism. daniel: yes and obstruction. it is fascinating that infects his first friend in the meantime who actually was a journalist when he was young. charlie: android about artists.
daniel: an interesting art critic. the word impressionists was used to make fun of them. charlie: what is the movie premiere? daniel: march 31 in new york, that goes all over. i hope. charlie: it is a great story. you about these two fascinating characters at the centerpiece. of authenticity to its because they had lives and were real. there are women involved. you cannot have it come from brands without women being involved. daniel: absolutely not. [laughter] i love my actors. married?he was you -- when his son seven years old. he never dared tells father that he was married, because he was not proud of his wife, she was
not bourgeois charlie:. charlie:caps on fame early. exactly, the opposite. it is completely opposite all the time. charlie: yang and yang. daniel: the places i shot the film are the real places. that would be a reason to make the film. daniel: yes, looking for locations, everybody was very -- it was very touching to be there where they were, all around where --e command you the place where he rented practically for all of his life. it was a mission to shoot there, it is a national park, it is hard to fire. exactlyermission to be in those spaces. that brought something fairy
magic to the film. charlie: do you know what you are going to do next? daniel: i will probably do project for television. charlie: because of the opportunities? daniel: even when i was very young i always worked for television. it was not a good thing to do in france, most great writers despised it. charlie: no longer here. no longer there anymore either. things are changing. think i might do that. mym still now, still in suzanne and zola story, but i will start thinking of something new. charlie: great see. daniel: thank you. ♪
>> everyone has an opinion. i've heard people this week say they have such rules, we going to talk about trump are not/ jon stewart retired last year but he is back on the colbert show virtually every night, which is blowing away jimmy fallon's tonight show ratings. who do we really need back to guide us in this time? inlost christopher hitchens 2011. when he was alive, no presidents, monarch, politician, not even god was safe from his perfect cutting commentary, his
historical wisdom rising. hitchens was unpredictable with whiskey wit, gravel and treat he was a 60's socialist and a ardent supporter of the -- invasion of iraq. no one was a badge of contrary and more probably than christopher hitchens as he once explained to trailing is. out of amongst always be step. if you do feel that the consensus does not speak for you, something about you makes you feel like it is worth being unpopular or marginal, for the chance to lead your own life, have a life instead of a career or job, then i can promise you it is worthwhile. say -- hitch pitch say about this age of donald trump? with marist colleagues, his
widow, historian douglas andkley, and martin amos leslie cockburn. looking to all of you. carroll, let me begin with you. you memorably told me that right up until his last moments, he was engaged in the news. we can absolutely predict he would've had something to say about what is going on right now. >> think he probably would have something to say every time he wrote a column or every time he came on tv. to infer have to try what he might have said, and really only he could say it. but there you go. >> we will call it intellectual forensics. he always had a sort of historical reference nobody else had that could create a parallel. what do you think he would find
is the most importance or significance historical reference that would describe this time of donald trump? >> he probably would've turned back to george orwell, who we love so much. the fact of the matter is, back in book's are circulation. one consistency of this contrarian christopher hitchens, or friend, was his disdain of authoritarianism in any guys. henryld go after kissinger, the catholic church, he did not care if he spelled authoritarianism. -- smelled towards their -- authoritarianism. the move of donald trump to suppressed journalists, would drive hitchens mad. he would also see this as a grand opportunity, living in washington, d.c., to move -- to areck trumps speakers that coming in, people on television. he would have loved to have warred with people like steve bannon, kellyanne conway. he knew he would be able to devastate them. nobody could beat hitchens and a
debate. he would have picked up the cause of freedom of the press, anti-authoritarianism, he would've questioned all of trumps seeming fascist tendencies. because trump is an opportunity for land-based traditional liberalism in because of d c, and the cert of contempt for the clintons that christopher hitchens had, and the election is hard for me to know where he would have come down on this election. what you think? >> think he would have been appalled by trump but he also would have said, who gave us trump, hillary clinton. christopher was not as you know a big supporter of hillary clinton. >> no. >> think he would have said it is because of the way they ran that campaign, that we ended up with donald trump. think he would have played a lot of responsibility at her feet. >> liberalism infuriated
christopher it seemed to me. it was just the sort of thelacent liberalism of intellectual elites drove him crazy. think you could say about the people who support on trump versus the people who have contempt for him? >> think you would be active in the resistance. i think he would sense that this was a moment that has chosen him. i think he would have more or hes ignored trump himself, thought bill clinton was a titanic full gary and. he would have jumped -- a vulgarian. he would've jumped out of his shoes to see trump. a think he would've gone for steve bannon. he would have honed in on steve who revealed himself yesterday as a semiliterate and erotic when he said, every morning president trump tells
-- re and i just rants ince and die, he meant and me. he is a neurotic windbag. >> exactly. think christopher would have said look to the language. first was trump, incredible poverty of his language. his attack on the press, we remember the nattering nabobs of negativity. that is what is coming out of bannon and trump now. to the language is what he would have said. think we would've learned a lot from that. i grew with you martin, the idea that bannon is the intellectual heavyweight and ideologue of this supernatural must wing of the -- super nationalist wing of the republican party is laughable. >> what you think the state of
the american system would be right now? >> christopher said, totalitarian is my enemy. not the person who tells you how to live or makes you pay taxes, it is the person who wants to control how you think. he would be very concerned of what is happening in those spice coming outnferences, of bannon and miller and trump himself. -- thought the front process. before orwell to tom paine, would've made it clear that if you cannot think, liberty is a shadow that equips the horizon. numbers,ooking at the and the whole pressure issue, i think he would have loved to be put in bashing, loved it. but, i think he would not have bought the notion that russians through the election in any way.
if you can would've said that the responsibility of the hillary campaign. he would've looked at the numbers in michigan for example, he would have said they were not there on the ground, they did not woo the unions, they did not do the job. onthink you would zero in these threats to the press. knows democracy cannot work without a free press. pete stark, menacing remarks that bannon and trump have been making about the opposition party, they said, we are going to do something about it. that set off all the alarms. you see on cable news this
sanctimonious kind of, why are you calling me the enemy? i'm just a journalist. assertive ceilinged question for , the press itself is a job to do. -- we are asking this question of what is the press to do in this moment, what you think doug? >> we had richard nixon after , hitchens participated in that, he loved to gossip about the next and tapes and the heinous things that he said. i think one of christopher's most successful endeavors was
calling henry kissinger a war criminal. that took bravery, he stayed on it with a study from brief whether you agreed with it or not. he was proud of the press. hunter s thompson wrote a book, called the great shark can't come the shark was richard nixon. the press came and went after next in and got him. a think hitchens would be proud of investigative journalists like him. to get out there and do stories, breaking news, being in washington dc and not new york, he would've been the grant who both of the modern press corps today. too christopher reeves growth -- through grand parties and journalists coming over to their place. it would have been a hub of how hitchens would have looked this trump phenomenon going on. they are apart and put them. it was the salon of washington and take it a in would've still been now. >> computes a look at what they are doing, which is not what depresses saying right now. he iress is reporting, but
think cap that spirit and ability to raise above him say, look at what they are doing. enjoyeduld have solitary tear of the press. when one journalist's shouted down by trump, all of the other i am spartacus, they should all same question. they have got to be confrontational with him. to be competition with the press. that moment when he said, but cut the many real beauty today, the press, they will pay for it. that beauty was that the crowds were foras big as they obama at his inauguration. it was not a beauty. anything that goes against his son's middleman -- spelling his mental -- suns middle name run is called fake news. he muddies the waters. fake news is no longer usable through ambiguity, because for trump it means news i do not like. hitchens, dotopher you think, know the script of
how we proceed? with a look back at his knowledge of orwell on the 20th century and the fascists and dictators who came and went and that he could quote chapter and verse like no one else, and know where we are headed nowhere else? >> think you're right about that. a think he also, i think we know trump does not really read. there are two movies i think he would be revisiting. not the first to point this out. .he manchurian candidate imagine angela lansbury is dan and, so bannon is not half as clever as she was. network, i looked at it again recently, incredibly apt. think he would have been trying -- drawing on these. >> douglas brinkley, harold blue, earnings, what would it say, we have an inkling. thank you for that. ♪
>> asia-pacific markets signal caution after wall street finished flat. negotiations on the new health care bill drag on. >> no need to choose. chinese premier li keqiang says they do not have to decide between their biggest ally and trading partner. will walk away from nafta if unhappy with nafta -- u.s. demand. >>